Austrian rifle muskets

[Artyman]

Was looking through some old books today and, after noticing a mention of same, I realized I know almost nothing about imported Austrian rifles. Same with the Belgan rifles.

Just what were these and were they any good?

The article regarded the arming of the 96 PA with Austrians, fighting a battle, then turning them in for new Enfields.

Harry

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

In brief and to over-generalize...

In 1842 Austrian had adopted the "Augustin" modfied tube-lock system and built a number of arms around the system including a musket, cadet musket, a musketoon for engineers, and a cavalry carbine.
In 1854 they dumped the tube-lock and went percussion.

With tensions building in Europe with the rise of the German confederation,, and Austrian problems in the 1859 Franco-Austrian War, they were looking to modernize and reform. The American Civil War provided eager buyers for the "good and the bad."

The muskets were the .70 Model 1842, which were orignally Augustin tube locks and smoothbores. Some were rifled to take the Minie type ball. In various configurations, the US bought about 68,505, with Herman Boker adding 39,038. Kruse, Drexel, & Schmidt added another 25,000.
Fremont took 25,000, dividing them roughly in half and sending half to Cincinatti to conversion to percussion by tapping a cone for the barrel, removing the Consul/Augustin mechanism, and replacing the hammer.

We they good?

Good enough as their first line musket for the Austrians for a few decades. :) :)

IMHO, by American and British standards, the Austrian guns were considered "serviceable" until replaceable- and ugly, poorly finished, and crudely made, with stocks of white/yellow beech.

And there are the old junk in small numbers such as the M1828 or M1807 flintlocks.

The perhaps most well known, and largest number imported by the US and CS, was the Austrian M1854 Rifle-Musket (the "Lorenz"), listed as a 2nd class arm. It was second in numbers only to the Enfield. Period accounts of Loreenz have lads BOTH praising them as well as cursing them as poorly made or defective.

CHS

[Parault]

Mr. Harry these websites:

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8549&highlight=lorenz

http://www.lazyjacks.org.uk/lorenz.htm

"The muskets were the .70 Model 1842, which were orignally Augustin tube locks and smoothbores. Some were rifled to take the Minie type ball. In various configurations, the US bought about 68,505, with Herman Boker adding 39,038. Kruse, Drexel, & Schmidt added another 25,000.
Fremont took 25,000, dividing them roughly in half and sending half to Cincinatti to conversion to percussion by tapping a cone for the barrel, removing the Consul/Augustin mechanism, and replacing the hammer".

Herr Schmidt,

If I am not mistaken wasnt there several calibers that made it to the Federal and CS side? I do know of the .54 being used, but other calibers as well. I cannot recall where I read the story of Gen. Grant talking about the Lorenz being used in Vicksburg. As I recall he didn't favor the Lorenz very much.

[Craig L Barry]

...having translated the gun terminology from German for the Austrian Officer's manual for the M-1854 Lorenz, “Osterrichische Infanterie - Feurgewehr, Wien, 1857,” maybe I can take a crack at it. I have a copy of it on my desk. Yes, the original caliber of the Austrian Lorenz M 1854 was 13.9 mm, which was close to .54. It is actually .556. The bore diameters on Lorenz guns rebored in Europe or America, or manufactured specifically for the American market, varied with samples noted in .556, .57, .577, .58 and .59 calibers.

Part of the reason for the mixed report card on the Austrian Lorenz is that incorrectly sized ammunition may have been issued...in fact, was issued, i.e., Mississippi rounds in .54 that were actually .535, and even though it is only a few hundreds of an inch off from .556, it was enough to prevent the bullet from compressing against the rifling in the barrel, making it about as accurate as a smoothbore. In addition, the majority (about 80%) of the M-1854s came with block sights set dead on for 300 schritt, which is the Austrian equivalent of a yard...meaning one pace. However, 300 schritt is only 225 yds. The "Osterrichische Infanterie - Feurgewehr, Wien, 1857,” explains all this and how to use the sights to hit a target at various distances over or under 300 schritt. Of course, the manual was never translated into English until fairly recently.

They also claimed (in Echoes of Glory...but I have read it elsewhere, too) that the bolster collected carbon and it fouled quickly. This is true of most muzzleloading black powder infantry arms, and I don't know why that would be a particular defect of the M-1854. The bolster on the Austrian Lorenz rifles that I have inspected seem straightforward enough...reminds me of the P53 Enfield. In fact, a nickname for the Lorenz was the Austrian Enfield due to the similarities in the minds of soldiers who had them. I have a theory about that, since many of the Lorenz M-1854 sold to America were Austrian government guns (unlike the Enfield...next to none of which were British Government guns) that had seen service in the various European campaigns, they were second hand to begin with. The M-1854s were available because the Austrians were upgrading to their new model 1862. They sold the old inventory of M-1854s overseas, and some of the guns were apparently sub-standard. No surprise there, either. By the way, the model 1862 was not exported to the US or CS during the Civil War. Any Austrian Lorenz dated (1)862 or after would be a commercial contractor produced M-1854, of which there were many examples.

[Artyman]

I noticed that Loyalist Arms has the full length Lorenz. Rifled version is listed at $775 US. I've read mixed reports about these guys, but the blurb they post at least shows a nice looking prodict.

If you're a reb, who'd most likely have been issued these?

Harry

[Blair]

Harry,

I believe the Lorenz rifles offered by Loyalist Arms are made by Pederosoli.
They also offer firearms by Armi Sport and Euroarms. These Makers firearms should be safe for shooting blanks through. I would advise caution on any of their "weapons" that they have to drill out the flash hole on. These could not have been properly proofed.
Just a suggestion on my part.
Blair Taylor

[Parault]

Mr. Taylor,

I don't know about all of their weapons, I recently purchased one of the Lorenz percussion rifles from a blackpowder dealer in Little Rock which in turn purchased several from Loyalist. The dealer had a master gunsmuth remove all modern markings from public view, and had it reworked. I am not sure of the grove turn radius, I do not have that information in front of me at this moment. I am very pleased. On my rifle it has 858 on the lockplate. It is .53 Cal. Mine has been proofed by the gunsmith.

[Blair]

P.L.,

Yes, As I stated I "believe" these Lorenz Rifles are made by Pederosoli, and should be safe. Pederosoli makes several copies of European firearms for different time periods. Most noted in this Country are their Sharps Rifles and carbines.
Canadian importation Laws may require this. If so, I wonder how the Canadians get around exporting them into this country? I honestly don't know. I have trouble keeping up with the Laws in this country. A bit of Legalese I find puzzling.
Do you know if the touch hole had to be drilled out in your rifle so it could be made to fire?
If this were case, I would be interested in knowing how this was done.
Blair Taylor

[GaWildcat]

The only "Germanic" arms that Pedersoli carries on their website are the following

Model 1857 Wurttemberg, 1798 Austrian, and 1809 Postdam.

Dixie USED to carry a Lorenz but it was a carbine type with no ramrod(???) but I have not seen it on their site.

[LibertyHallVols]

I find it interesting that all of the muskets on the Virginia memorial at Gettysburg are some variety of Austrian musket.

Ponderous, man. Ponderous!

[Parault]

P.L.,

Yes, As I stated I "believe" these Lorenz Rifles are made by Pederosoli, and should be safe. Pederosoli makes several copies of European firearms for different time periods. Most noted in this Country are their Sharps Rifles and carbines.
Canadian importation Laws may require this. If so, I wonder how the Canadians get around exporting them into this country? I honestly don't know. I have trouble keeping up with the Laws in this country. A bit of Legalese I find puzzling.
Do you know if the touch hole had to be drilled out in your rifle so it could be made to fire?
If this were case, I would be interested in knowing how this was done.
Blair Taylor

I am not sure, however, I will find out.

[Craig L Barry]

A o T had M-1854 Lorenz rifles, as did many of the western Feds. Not sure what the fascination is with the Loyalist repro...unless I am missing something.

The problem with the Loyalist M-1854 is, well where to start? How about just the not easily fixed problems? The wrist on the original Lorenz is much shorter than the repro...I know how you remove and shape wood, but how would you add it back on? Also the stock is "teakwood", which is inexpensive, but about one grade harder than pine. It is not a wood considered appropriate for use in a gun stock. The sight is incorrect (although they offer a repro bayonet now), an original can not be made to fit to the barrel. The hammer nose is too long and the hammer is the wrong shape and profile. I suppose you could fit an orginal hammer to it. It is like Wickett said a couple years ago, if I am quoting him right "...it only looks like a Lorenz if I squint at the screen."

If it were me...and this can be done for not much more than the "new rifled version at $775 US", I would put one together out of disassociated parts and have Hoyt or Whitacre sleeve the barrel.

[LibertyHallVols]

It is like Wickett said a couple years ago, if I am quoting him right "...it only looks like a Lorenz if I squint at the screen."

If it were me...and this can be done for not much more than the "new rifled version at $775 US", I would put one together out of disassociated parts and have Hoyt or Whitacre sleeve the barrel.

Yep, that's about right! It helps to be in a dark room, too!

Craig, I agree that there are great alternatives to the repro that will be of much greater quality. Building a parts gun wouldn't be too difficult given a gunsmith with some skill. Parts are available from The Rifle Shoppe, along with other sources. A year or so ago, College Hill Arsenal had a rifle for sale that had some replacement parts, but looked like a mint original. It sold for $1200, I think. It was VERY nice!!

[Blair]

To all,

I will talk to the importers of "some" of Loyalist Arms firearms at the Shot Show this week.
The Lorenz offered by Loyalist Arms is imported from India. Along with others. I will try to report on those later.
The Lorenz offered by Dixie was made by the Ceck's. That deal is no more!
Blair Taylor

[Craig L Barry]

...the Czech made Lorenz that Dixie had a while back was not the M-1854 rifle, I think it was one of the carbines. I wish Pedersoli made a Lorenz, it would be worth having one if that was the case.

[Craig L Barry]

...a gunsmith to do one of these projects either. Granted, fitting parts can require a little work with a file, but other than that it is only woodworking and turning a screw driver.

Anyway, the point is that if you want a Lorenz or your impression calls for it, there are other options than going the Loyalist Arms "India made" diminished quality route, even with a rifled barrel. At $775, you still need a decent hammer, reshaping the lockplate, and a re-shaped gunstock, plus the incidental hardware. I think you would be money ahead doing a "put together" from parts, even at today's inflated prices. To my eye, a lot of the weapons you see at gun shows sold as originals are "put togethers."

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Yes, the "Dixie" Czech version is the Austrian M1854 Short Rifle, aka "Jaegerstutzen" or "Yager" rifle with a 28 inch barrel.

HOWEVER, the catalog write-up is for the M1854 Rifle-Musket ("Lorenz").

Curt

[Blair]

To All.

Nothing to report on a the India made guns of any kind. They were not set up at the Shot Show. Nor was Loyalist Arms.
Blair

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

A rhetorical question then...

Is it not perhaps strange that if there were an "acceptable" (subjective and objective considerations so noted) M1854 "Lorenz" that would meet the Hobby demand, there would not be postings, discussions, and images?

I am admittedly out of the loop, but I seem to have missed them.

CHS

[Artyman]

Well, I guess the real issue is not which bad ones are bad or which expensive ones are good, it's "Why hasn't this weapon, which appeared in such great numbers on both sides, not been reproduced by a more significant manufacturer?" Do we harbor a bias against Austrians? My gosh, if I had the $$$ these days like I did back then I'd go after Navy Arms just like we did with the Charlevilles back in the late 70's and get some one to produce/import them. It's been done before ala Val Forgett, why not again?

Harry

[FloridaConfederate]

Do we harbor a bias against Austrians?


Not me. I have a Glock 27 in my front pocket as I type this.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida
I luv m1911 but its hard to beat 10rds of .40 in a pocket sized package mess.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Well, I guess the real issue is not which bad ones are bad or which expensive ones are good, it's "Why hasn't this weapon, which appeared in such great numbers on both sides, not been reproduced by a more significant manufacturer?"

This harkens back to many previous discussions.

IMHO...

A combination of demand and past practices.

Meaning, the Italains already have production facilities, molds, tooling, etc., etc., to continue to produce their bread-and-butter "Enfield" and the "Springfield."
To their credit, they have expanded the lines over the years a bit with the M1842, M1863, and M1864 (and others) and "variations on a theme" such as doing the M1861 and then tweaking clones from it such as the M1855 and the Richmond.

But to our discredit, we as a market eagerly consume Enfields and Springfield in less than "authentic" forms- in numbers too large to get the Italians to want to upset the turnip cart.

But by the same token, look at the phenominal rise of firearms that the Italians have made available for the Cowboy Action Shooting community in the past 10 years (some of which crosses-over to the Civil War community such as the M1865 Spencer Rifle).

It was said that the rise of CAS/SASS shooting saw the Italians backlog between 50,000 and 75,000 "cowoby era" revolvers.

I think it comes down to what the Italians see the US and International market as willing to support to the point of guaranteeing a profit for their start up and production costs.

There have been some conversations about the "Lorenz" with the Italians, and someone even started a petition drive (I do not know what happened to that).

And while we had some hopes, they declined or vanished with the recent cyclical decline in Civil War reenacting, and the general decline in all era reenacting due to the Recession/Depression and gas prices, etc., etc.

Others' mileage will vary.

CHS
Who regrets not restoring his original Lorenz and bayonet, and selling them for $400 a few years ago Mess

[tompritchett]

And while we had some hopes, they declined or vanished with the recent cyclical decline in Civil War reenacting, and the general decline in all era reenacting due to the Recession/Depression and gas prices, etc., etc.


Of course there is the option of a smaller American gunsmith company to make them individually but then the issue again boils down to economics - will there be enough interested reenactors who would be willing to pay the higher costs of such semi-custom built weapons for it to become feasible for a gunsmith to take on such a project.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

My memory and information fails me at the moment...

But as I recall, there was a "gun builder" in Michigan (?) or somewhere that was going to produce custom-built M1854 Lorenz's for about $1500 (?) about
5-6 (?) years ago.

All I recall that excitement was generated, a brochure was forthcoming, and that he was starting to take orders.

And then it fell apart.

Wish I could remember the details to share.

Sorry.

CHS

[Craig L Barry]

...Greg Eddington (he called it Bridesbrug Armory) and he produced a grand total of one weapon. The kits were supposed to be made up from Rifle Shoppe parts, which was one of the problems. Those parts can take six months to get. And $1400 or something was the price for the version with the ladder sight. Ten years ago you could get a decent M-1854 Lorenz in shooting condition for $450. For that reason they didn't sell...and the Bridesburg Armory Lorenz repro kit idea never took off. ****, people wouldn't buy the Dixie/Miroku US 1861 for $600 in kit form, and the parts were finished (not rough castings). All you had to do was sand and oil the stock, then put the parts into it. And those were really decent 1861s compared to the Italian version. For one thing the Dixie/Miroku 1861s weighed two pounds less.

One of the other Internet Forums got something like six hundred signatures on a petition and sent it to both Italian gunmakers. This was laughed off because six hundred orders (and that's if everybody that signed the thing actually bought one) is not enough sales volume to re-tool and make up a completely new weapon. And you know about half of those six hundred guys are still living in Mom and Dad's basement playing video games, and would not have come through when it was time to pony up the funds.

Keep in mind that most of the Civil War repro muskets are variations of the same basic platform with slightly different hardware and cosmetics. The Lorenz would not share parts with any of the muskets either manufacturer is currently producing, say the way a US 1861 and CS Richmond and US 1855 might share most of the same parts. The question of making a Lorenz was posed to the President of Armi-Sport (Armi Chiappa) by Phil McBride and their position was "Every year we sell fewer Civil War muskets than the year before, tooling up is expensive and unless we can generate more sales from a new model, we won't make it." The point being that they (correctly I think) thought that any repro 1854 Lorenz sales would come at the expense of their existing Springfield and Enfield sales, and would not be in addition to what they were already selling.

So into the void stepped Loyalist Arms with their sorta-kinda looks like a Lorenz or at least a Civil War-era foreign gun at price people would pay for such a thing. It's probably just as well because although one would hope the Italians would do a better job and use higher quality materials, they would just have gotten other things wrong, and most (re)enactors would still probably buy the cheaper Loyalist Arms version and "live with it."

[Blair]

The Lorenz, at the time of the ACW was considered as a second class weapon. While many were purchased and issued, I see no evidence that these firearms were kept in service after newer, better, and more reliable firearms became available.
These guns, like many others were issued as a stop gap measure. Having any firearm, was better than having none.
There are original Lorenz Rifles available, in various stages of destruction. Restoration of such weapons is possible for many of these along with the costs of havind work done.
But when this work is finished, all that you will have is a restoration of a European made second class weapon.
It is my opinion, that if you are wanting to go to this kind of effort, there are thousands of American made firearms out there that would be far better choices. And, when the work is finished, you will have something that will be of greater value.
I know opinions will vary on this subject, and that is fine. But, if an individual is going the spend the money on a firearm, why spend it on something of questionable safety to yourself and perhaps others?
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Blair Taylor

[Artyman]

Well Blair, you are absolutely correct! They were second rate. But, that being said, you could join a unit who's impression period date might be just when the Lorenzs were issued (or even say, 1842 smooth bores, Mississippi's, flintlocks, etc). Whether or not the weapon was first rate doesn't alter the fact that it was indeed issued. Not having any choice can create a farbism, unless your unit changes it's impression date.

It's like Rev War was in the 70's. If you were American you still had to use a Brown Bess 'cuz there were no Charlevilles available.

Harry

[LibertyHallVols]

...if an individual is going the spend the money on a firearm, why spend it on something of questionable safety to yourself and perhaps others?

Why would an original, restored, or refurbished Lorenz be inherently less safe than a corresponding condition original, restored, or refurbished US arm, such as a US M1816/22, 1842, or 1861?

I own an original Lorenz that was used for some time competitively in the N-SSA by one of the most accomplished gunsmiths in that group (or any other!). I would have no qualms about shooting it live, let alone with blanks.

Please clarify. Thanks,

John

[Blair]

Harry,

You are correct.
The arms issued and the units joined were not optional considerations for the troops at the time.
You do have the luxury of choice today.
I believe, an 1863 or '64 Springfield would be a poor choice for an 1861 event. But, how many firearms might any one unit require a member to purchase before that potential member would be allowed to play?
Would having a '42 Musket or even '41 Rifle really diminish the authenticity or the unit for that event that much?
Remember the Lorenz is a "Rifle" and carries the same "shorter barrel" stigma as do other "rifles" in line of battle



John,

I know of a number of firearms that have been restored and are used in competition. These often have been lined or barreled by reputable and approved barrel makers. I would not consider these "less safe".
My reference to "questionable safety" is for a weapon that has never been "proofed" and/or could have ever been proofed to test the quality of those materials and workmanship because the manufacture never drilled out the touch hole.
The other "questionable safety" issue involves original barrels in extremely poor and of heavily misused condition.
Blair Taylor

[LibertyHallVols]

My reference to "questionable safety" is for a weapon that has never been "proofed" and/or could have ever been proofed to test the quality of those materials and workmanship because the manufacture never drilled out the touch hole.

The other "questionable safety" issue involves original barrels in extremely poor and of heavily misused condition.
Blair Taylor

Oh, you were referring to repro Lorenz rifles. And, yes, I'd agree that any original needs to be scrutinized by a qualified gunsmith before firing.

I had misread your prior post as suggesting that there was something particularly unsafe about original Lorenz's, making them "more unsafe" than US arms. Thank you for clearing that up!

[RJSamp]

While many were purchased and issued, I see no evidence that these firearms were kept in service after newer, better, and more reliable firearms became available.

Just my thoughts on the subject.
Blair Taylor

Then you need to start reading (or searching) Blair. 4th Texas, 2nd WVI, 7th WVI at Gettysburg July 1863 for example.....this is well 'after newer, better, and more reliable firearms became available' and yet they were still used and in service. There were some 29 regiments in the ACW that were armed with Lorenz' 2nd rate muskets even after hundreds of thousands of Enfields and Springfields were available....

Now the Belgian and Prussian muskets on the other hand.....

[Blair]

RJ,

If you have documentation of three complete Regements, any three, at the time of G'burg, being issued all one kind of firearm, any firearm, I would be very interested in seeing it.
Blair Taylor

[Craig L Barry]

...with Todd's Military Equipage. It is certainly possible that some units all received the same arm, but regiments? Period accounts like the following suggest a more hapharzard system of issuance:

"Some of our boys got Austrian rifles, some Enfield and others Springfield. I got the Enfield. Bob got the finest arm of the whole lot, a fine United States Springfield rifle." (Pvt Orrin W Cook 22nd Mass Inf)

[RJSamp]

RJ,

If you have documentation of three complete Regements, any three, at the time of G'burg, being issued all one kind of firearm, any firearm, I would be very interested in seeing it.
Blair Taylor


They were issued the weapons well before GBurg.....had them at Antietam for example. What are you looking for three regiments being handed weapons on the morning of July 1st?


Lance Herdegen's book "In the Railroad Cut at Gettysburg" has THE definitive research article on Arms and equippage for the Iron Brigade by Madaus. Read it and weep. Their is a QM listing by company of the 2nd WVI over on the Authentic Campaigner.....

BTW just because a Regiment had 547 Enfields and 50 of a mixed bag doesn't mean that they weren't issued one kind of firearm, any firearm, at one time. No one is discounting the fact that soldier's picked up firearms of all sorts and added them to their arsenal.

Entire BRIGADES in CSA received one type of firearm, issued at one time, immediately after the capture of Harper's Ferry in September 1862. Also after several victories, entire CSA regiments turned in weapons and received captured/recovered USA infantry firearms of one type, at one time.

What are you thinking, that they issued the two flank regiments rifles, and the interior 8 regiments .69 rifled muskets? Or that they issued 5 different types of firearms with 5 different caliber ammunition needs so as to SIMPLIFY the ordnance departments work.

Your position was (has it changed?) that regiments were not using 2nd rate arms after 1st rate arms became readily available......

my position is that they some were....including 29 regiments using the Lorenz .54 (or rebored to .577) rifle-musket.

I'm really not worried about 'complete', or '100%',or 'at one time'.....

[Blair]

Thank you Mr Barry, this is the type of info I endeavoring to put across.


RJ,

"Entire Brigades in the CSA received one type firearm, issued at one time, immediately after capture of Harpers Ferry in September 1862."

September of 1862 is sixteen months after Harper Ferry was captured. I don't see how this equates to just "after" Harpers Ferry's capture.
The Armory had in storage large stores of old Muskets '16/22's, '35, which had been or were being altered and in some cases rifled. '42's that were being rifled, large numbers of '41's that were undergoing no less than 6 major modifications as well as 5 variations of the standard M-1855's Rifles and Rifle Muskets in May of 1861.
Which of these arms did CSA Brigades receive when there were no units designated as CSA in May of 1861?
I'm not greedy, I would be satisfied if you could provide info on "one" Regiment, where all 10 Companies were issued one firearm, of the same caliber, of any model/make firearm.
Blair Taylor

[Craig L Barry]

both of you are saying, and it may just be a matter of semantics. The broader points are still these:

1. The M-1854 Lorenz was a widely issued second class weapon, better than the smoothbore muskets they replaced, but not as good as most of the p53s and US 1861s that replaced them.

2. There is currently a reproduction of the M-1854 which is serviceable, if not as good as it should be. It probably can't be improved to the point where it would be a good reproduction of the M-1854. However, if you MUST have a M-1854, you have that option.

3. The best way to an historically accurate weapon for living history and (re)enacting is to build one from disassociated original parts, using quality rebuilt or reproduction parts in limited number to complete the project.

[Artyman]

Yep, sounds like that to me, plus,

4. we arn't likely to see these massed produced any time soon!

Harry

[RJSamp]

Thank you Mr Barry, this is the type of info I endeavoring to put across.


RJ,

"Entire Brigades in the CSA received one type firearm, issued at one time, immediately after capture of Harpers Ferry in September 1862."

September of 1862 is sixteen months after Harper Ferry was captured. I don't see how this equates to just "after" Harpers Ferry's capture.
The Armory had in storage large stores of old Muskets '16/22's, '35, which had been or were being altered and in some cases rifled. '42's that were being rifled, large numbers of '41's that were undergoing no less than 6 major modifications as well as 5 variations of the standard M-1855's Rifles and Rifle Muskets in May of 1861.
Which of these arms did CSA Brigades receive when there were no units designated as CSA in May of 1861?
I'm not greedy, I would be satisfied if you could provide info on "one" Regiment, where all 10 Companies were issued one firearm, of the same caliber, of any model/make firearm.
Blair Taylor


Let's start with the Basics.

Read one book about the September 1862 Antietam campaign.....you are stating unequivocally that CSA didn't capture a 10,000 infantry garrison at Harper's Ferry? That USA cavalry didn't escape capture by conducting a daring break out with muffled hooves? That these weapons weren't reissued to CSA regiments? Sears Landscape Turned Red. And yes this is 16 months after your citing of another time Harper's Ferry fell....didn't Winchester change hands some 31 times during the war?

The 2nd WVI infantry regiment was issued over 1,000 Belgian muskets at Camp Randall, Madison, WI.....one time, one caliber, one regiment, one firearm. (Same with the 3rd, 4th, 5th.....). The 24th MI received some 1,024 .58 caliber 1861 Springfields in camp in Detroit MI, September 1862 one time, one caliber, one regiment, one firearm.

The 2nd WVI and 7th WVI were issued Lorenz .54 rifles (some rebored to .577) in batches while Enfields and Springfields were readily available.

Your point was that 2nd rate weapons weren't used while superior firearms were readily available.

[Artyman]

I wonder how often a soldier, upon picking up an 1861 Springfield from a battlefield after, or during a battle, might have just made his own swap, tossing away his Lorenz, or Prussian, flintlock, or smooth bore, or etc. Unless I was really attached to my old weapon, I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade!

This would certainly be one way a unit might have mixed up musket types.

Harry

[Craig L Barry]

At Little Round Top, one member of the 20th Maine recorded:


July 4th. Weather cloudy. We went out and picked up Springfields and left our Enfields. Nearly everyone did so. (diary of William Livermore)

[TheQM]

RJ,

If you have documentation of three complete Regements, any three, at the time of G'burg, being issued all one kind of firearm, any firearm, I would be very interested in seeing it.
Blair Taylor

Blair,

Based on the Ordnance Reports for June 30, 1863, the large majority of regiments in the Army of the Potomac were armed with the same weapon (Or at least the same caliber weapon. The reports don't break down the various .58 caliber American made weapons.) by the time of the Gettysburg Battle.

Taking just the First Division, First Corps. Five regiments were armed with various .58 American weapons. Two regiments were armed with Enfields. One regiment was armed with .54 cal Lorenz rifles. Only two regiments had mixed caliber weapons. One had a mix of .54 and .58 Lorenz rifles. The other had a mix of Enfields and Lorenz rifles.

What's interesting is the number of regiments still armed with rifled and smooth bore .69 weapons.

[Craig L Barry]

That's really the key, the records don't break it down that exactly. My favorite is when it states "a mixture of smoothbore muskets of the old style."

[Dignann]

For weapons in the AoP for the last quarter of 1862, take a look at the link on this thread:

Armament in the Army of the Potomac - Fredericksburg (http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?p=95362#post95362)

Approximately 12% were of Austrian origin.

Eric

[RJSamp]

I wonder how often a soldier, upon picking up an 1861 Springfield from a battlefield after, or during a battle, might have just made his own swap, tossing away his Lorenz, or Prussian, flintlock, or smooth bore, or etc. Unless I was really attached to my old weapon, I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade!

This would certainly be one way a unit might have mixed up musket types.

Harry

Ammo resupply may have been an issue.....or may not.....

Nowadays (including, as you know Harry, Viet Nam) you don't do it because you don't want your firings to be mistaken for the enemy....

[TheQM]

That's really the key, the records don't break it down that exactly.

Craig,

As I said, they don't break down what .58 cal. American weapons were issued, but the ordnance reports are pretty clear concerning which units had the foreign made weapons, both Enfields and Lorenz rifles.

It's also obvious, they were more concerned about ammunition supply. The weapons are listed as .69 (rifled or smooth bore) .58, .577, and .54 calibers. You'll note that one regiment reported a mix of .58 and .54 Lorenz rifles.

This is just a guess, but it seems the folks who had the foreign weapons wanted the Ordnance Department to know about it. "Hey, when do we get the new weapons?"

Bill

[Blair]

What the soldier may or may not have picked up during or after the battle is NOT an issued firearm. I think it is safe to say that we all know this was done. There may have been many reasons why a soldier could have done this. We, as historians, should not speculate as to the reasons.

Availability. Yes '61's and Enfield's were available in large numbers by the summer of 1863. But not always in numbers large enough to supply them to every Regiment that may have been in need.
Re issuance of captured firearms is also a well known practice. Probably far more beneficial to Southern forces than for Northern. Southern forces capture large numbers of firearms at various times and reissue these. These captured arms are most often listed as "Stands" or number of "Arms" captured. Individual types and models of arms are not itemized until the ORD. Dept. has had a chance to go through them to determine which are serviceable. Those that were not serviceable would not be "available" for reissue until cleaning and/or repairs were made.

The problem is in the descriptions of issued firearms to various units from a Company level on up.
Such as,
1000 Springfield Muskets issued to (insert what ever Regiment you wish). This maybe on a Quarterly Report for 1863. This would indicate this number of arms was issued to that Regiment within that 3 month quarterly time period.
If it is on a Annual or Fiscal Report for the same year, that number of arms are issued to that Regiment within the 12 month fiscal year of 1863.
Curt-Heinrich Schmidt posted such an Annual Report on another thread on this forum. Of the 70 some odd Infantry Regiments listed, only one Regiment had received an issuance of 1000 Springfield Muskets over that reporting period.
The term "Musket" can be rather subjective. Does it literally mean "Musket"? A "Musket" is the general reference for any and all Military muzzle loading firearm by model type and/or caliber. The term "Musket" could mean smooth bore firearm. If the are all indeed Springfields, they would have to be .69 cal
The term "Springfield" may also be used in a general since, referring to American made Military muzzle loading firearms of any and all makes and model types (with the exception of the M-1841 Rifle which was referred to as the Harpers Ferry Rifle, Springfield does not make any model 1841 Rifles).
I have seem Austrian made firearms listed in these reports many times.
They could be Lorenz Rifles, but no one can be sure unless they state Lorenz specifically and/or the .54 cal. Without this info, they could be any number of other Austrian made firearms that were also imported.
Much can be assumed from these documents, but as Historians, we should not read any more into the documents than is actually there.

For general information Whinchester, Va. "changes hands" 76 times. Not always under force of arms.
Blair Taylor

[Pvt Schnapps]

Craig,

As I said, they don't break down what .58 cal. American weapons were issued, but the ordnance reports are pretty clear concerning which units had the foreign made weapons, both Enfields and Lorenz rifles.

It's also obvious, they were more concerned about ammunition supply. The weapons are listed as .69 (rifled or smooth bore) .58, .577, and .54 calibers. You'll note that one regiment reported a mix of .58 and .54 Lorenz rifles.

This is just a guess, but it seems the folks who had the foreign weapons wanted the Ordnance Department to know about it. "Hey, when do we get the new weapons?"

Bill

I agree that ammunition was the most important consideration. I suspect that foreign vs. US was also a consideration because of the issue of interchangeability. Otherwise you wouldn't need to distinguish Enfields from Springfields because an Enfield is also a first-class weapon and functionally .577 is the same calibre as .58 (both .574?). US units armed with foreign weapons were authorized a set of armorer's tools and an extra duty armorer, so that would be a(nother) reason for pointing that out on the returns. I guess.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Otherwise you wouldn't need to distinguish Enfields from Springfields because an Enfield is also a first-class weapon and functionally .577 is the same calibre as .58 (both .574?)."

Just an aside...

True, but only after January of 1862.
Through 1861, there were problems with "Springfield" ammo (so-called .58 ) being too large for the "Enfield" (so-called .57) so yes a "standardized" diameter was adopted at nominal .574 to be safe for either arm.

The "Enfield" was never realy "intended" to become regulation and there is no mention of Enfield ammunition in the 3rd Edition Ordnance Manual (compiled in 1861, published in 1862).

CHS

[RJSamp]

I have seem Austrian made firearms listed in these reports many times.
They could be Lorenz Rifles, but no one can be sure unless they state Lorenz specifically and/or the .54 cal. Without this info, they could be any number of other Austrian made firearms that were also imported.

So how many times did Harper's Ferry change hands AFTER May 1861?

The returns for the 2nd WVI and 7th WVI specifically state Lorenz Rifle .54 (for the 2nd WVI) and .577 for the 7th WVI (rebored). If their are differences within the regiment, that is also stated.

Extent Originals support this as well.

[Shortround]

Craig,

As I said, they don't break down what .58 cal. American weapons were issued, but the ordnance reports are pretty clear concerning which units had the foreign made weapons, both Enfields and Lorenz rifles.

It's also obvious, they were more concerned about ammunition supply. The weapons are listed as .69 (rifled or smooth bore) .58, .577, and .54 calibers. You'll note that one regiment reported a mix of .58 and .54 Lorenz rifles.

Bill

Ammo supply may have not been the big problem we think it was. Soldiers typically only had 60 rounds for a campaign. That a far cry from the Vietnam era 240 rounds a day or the cans of ammo my son's Hummer carried in Iraq.

The .54 cals were somewhat a common weapon round. The .577 could "eat" the .58 ammo. The only odd men out were the .69 rifled and smoothbore because they were not really common to one another.

I think the biggest problem was merely getting the ammo. And that seems to be an age old problem.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Hallo!

"Otherwise you wouldn't need to distinguish Enfields from Springfields because an Enfield is also a first-class weapon and functionally .577 is the same calibre as .58 (both .574?)."

Just an aside...

True, but only after January of 1862.
Through 1861, there were problems with "Springfield" ammo (so-called .58 ) being too large for the "Enfield" (so-called .57) so yes a "standardized" diameter was adopted at nominal .574 to be safe for either arm.

The "Enfield" was never realy "intended" to become regulation and there is no mention of Enfield ammunition in the 3rd Edition Ordnance Manual (compiled in 1861, published in 1862).

CHS

Thanks for the clarification, Curt. I quoted your reply for the benefit of posters who may not have read that far in the thread. :)

[Blair]

RJ,

"So how many times did Harpers Ferry change hands AFTER May 1861?"
I don't Know.
After the Armory was captured in 1861 it made little to no significant difference. "Except" to protect the flank (s) or rear of whom every had control of it.
You brought the subject up of Harpers Ferry... I'm sure you already have the answer.

When I stated, "unless they state Lorenz specifically and/or the .54 cal.", I should have included the .577, and the .58 (re bores) along with the .54.
I honestly thought the single "rifle" caliber was sufficient to put the information across.

As to WV Regiments, I have never had reason to do any research on them specifically. I am not saying you are incorrect in the statements you have made regarding WV.
I would like to see how these returns are worded in regards to these weapons, because the returns I have read from other Regiments are extremely vague in the descriptions of the firearms listed.
I have no doubt there were 29 other Regiments that received Lorenz Rifles in one or more of the known calibers.
What I am questioning is the entire Regiment, every man in every Company being issued nothing but Lorenz Rifles.
This was something that was very difficult to do even with firearms as numerious as the various Springfield's and Enfield's which were available in quantities far greater than the Lorenz.
Blair Taylor

[flattop32355]

\
As to WV Regiments...

Keep in mind that when RJ speaks of WVI, it is Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, not West Virginia Infantry.

[VMI Cadets]

Thanks for the info on this.

I have a personal interest in the 1851 Cadet Springfield or the .54 Cal Austrian Lorenz and was looking into the one currently being offered by that Italian company. Guess I'll keep looking.

Paul W

[Rob Weaver]

There is a small museum on the outskirts of Wall, South Dakota which has an interesting wall display of old guns picked up in the Badlands over the years. They are mostly a mix of civilian rifles and shotguns, 1873 repeaters, hunting rifles, etc. Desicated, mumifed in the dry conditions, would be a good term to describe them. 5 years ago there was one lone specimen unidentified among them. I looked at it, turned to the owner/proprietor and said. "You can label it now. That, Sir, is an 1854 Lorenz." How it got there I have nooooooooooooooooo idea.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

That Wall drug store does have everything!

;) :)

CHS

[Jim Mayo]

I find it interesting that all of the muskets on the Virginia memorial at Gettysburg are some variety of Austrian musket.


How did I miss that post. Wonder why that is since there were so many Enfields used at that time. Was the scluptor from Austria?

[mississippian]

Jim,

Is it in .54 or .58?

Will MacDonald

[Jim Mayo]

.54 cal, leaf sight.

I just looked at the US ordanance stores on hand referenced earlier in this thread and there were lots of Union units with Lorenz arms. Based on that I think I will edit my previous request and use the list.

But CS unit information would be nice. If you know of a CS unit at Antietam that was armed with Lorenz rifles I would like that information. May be best to look into CS use first. I presume there were some units from Miss and Ala that were armed with the .54 Lorenz because I found some new austrian bullets in a 1862/63 picket post shared by units from both states.

[tompritchett]

That Wall drug store does have everything!

Including plenty of advertizing along I-80. :D